I never said nothing exists outside of me. Based on the evidence that minds are needed to describe what we see, then the external world can only exist in God's mind.

Which is practically meaningless. It makes no predictions about the world, it tells us nothing useful, and its only actual purpose is to reaffirm a belief that you have no evidence to support.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Atheists are in a pickle when they try to claim that things exist outside of our minds while relying only on their minds to say such a thing: CCR=Classic Circular Reasoning.

Your own reasoning (that the external world can only exist in God's mind) is fanciful and incoherent. You have no evidence to support such a contention, or even that such a being as 'God' exists in the first place. And saying that the external world can only exist in God's mind, because minds are needed to describe what we see, is incoherent. It is not a meaningful argument, because the fact that minds are needed to describe what we see has nothing to do with the external world being in a mind.

By comparison, the argument that there is a world external to us is supported by evidence - if I point at something, you can see me pointing at it. If you point at something, I can see you pointing at it. Furthermore, for it to be a circular argument, the conclusion must effectively contain the premise. You can certainly say that we rely on our minds in order to determine that things exist outside of our minds, but it goes no further than that. So your argument simply fails.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

If you guys used to be Christians, wouldn't you know why we believe what we believe?

Why do you want Christians to think critically about their faith? Does our belief bother you?

Actually, a number of atheists here were not believers. Their curiosity is genuine. By contrast, I was a believer. I know why many believers retain their faith, but I am usually too polite to point it out. Since you brought up the subject, I'll make an exception

Believers are scared. They're like frightened little children who long for someone to protect them; protect them from the demons under their bed, protect them from the harshness of reality, and for someone more powerful than themselves to tell them that everything will be 'ok'. I leave these folks alone. They can retain their comfortable illusions for as long as they remain unchallenged by life, and perhaps, if they are especially vulnerable, even thereafter.

It doesn't need to be proven, Skeptic. We're using it right now. Whether or not it's real or an illusion, it's real enough for our needs and it's consistent enough for our needs.

Not when it comes to things that existed before any minds were around. There's no possible way to claim what could exist when there's no minds around to describe it.

This is a purely empirical claim and it leads to God. You atheists are adding an extra unproven step that is NOT based on empiricism.

Projection at it's finest, it's actually the other way around.You posit a complex mind HAD to come up with the universe, you can't get around the infinite regression problem.What mind created god? What mind created that mind? Ad-infinitum

It doesn't need to be proven, Skeptic. We're using it right now. Whether or not it's real or an illusion, it's real enough for our needs and it's consistent enough for our needs.

Not when it comes to things that existed before any minds were around. There's no possible way to claim what could exist when there's no minds around to describe it.

This is a purely empirical claim and it leads to God. You atheists are adding an extra unproven step that is NOT based on empiricism.

Projection at it's finest, it's actually the other way around.You posit a complex mind HAD to come up with the universe, you can't get around the infinite regression problem.What mind created god? What mind created that mind? Ad-infinitum

[wiki]Infinite regress[/wiki]

watch this video:

The universe has no need for a creator.

10 billion dollars for that machine?!?!?!

Imagine if that money went to feeding the world's hungry!

How ludicrous! This is what happens when you stop caring about others just to focus on where the universe came from, which is trivial compared to someone's life.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

It doesn't need to be proven, Skeptic. We're using it right now. Whether or not it's real or an illusion, it's real enough for our needs and it's consistent enough for our needs.

Not when it comes to things that existed before any minds were around. There's no possible way to claim what could exist when there's no minds around to describe it.

This is a purely empirical claim and it leads to God. You atheists are adding an extra unproven step that is NOT based on empiricism.

Projection at it's finest, it's actually the other way around.You posit a complex mind HAD to come up with the universe, you can't get around the infinite regression problem.What mind created god? What mind created that mind? Ad-infinitum

[wiki]Infinite regress[/wiki]

watch this video:<snip>

The universe has no need for a creator.

10 billion dollars for that machine?!?!?!

Imagine if that money went to feeding the world's hungry!

How ludicrous! This is what happens when you stop caring about others just to focus on where the universe came from, which is trivial compared to someone's life.

Yes, I watched the whole video. A lot of unsupported assertions and statements of "perhaps" a lot.

How is that science?

He never asserted anything, name one assertion? Michio has a bad habit of being a bit over-excited in his explanations but he never actually asserts anything. Everything he says can be verified by searching for the peer reviewed papers, which you won't bother looking for will you?

"Perhaps" is VERY VERY good science, "perhaps", "maybe", "we think", "we have reason to believe", those are all acceptable scientific phrases.

Yes, I watched the whole video. A lot of unsupported assertions and statements of "perhaps" a lot.

How is that science?

He never asserted anything, name one assertion? Michio has a bad habit of being a bit over-excited in his explanations but he never actually asserts anything. Everything he says can be verified by searching for the peer reviewed papers, which you won't bother looking for will you?

"Perhaps" is VERY VERY good science, "perhaps", "maybe", "we think", "we have reason to believe", those are all acceptable scientific phrases.

He thinks the whole universe is nothing. He has not empirically demonstrated that. I am sure he won't mind signing over his paycheck to me considering he would just be signing over nothing to me.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Yes, I watched the whole video. A lot of unsupported assertions and statements of "perhaps" a lot.

How is that science?

He never asserted anything, name one assertion? Michio has a bad habit of being a bit over-excited in his explanations but he never actually asserts anything. Everything he says can be verified by searching for the peer reviewed papers, which you won't bother looking for will you?

"Perhaps" is VERY VERY good science, "perhaps", "maybe", "we think", "we have reason to believe", those are all acceptable scientific phrases.

He thinks the whole universe is nothing. He has not empirically demonstrated that. I am sure he won't mind signing over his paycheck to me considering he would just be signing over nothing to me.

Actually he did, he told you how to do it, now all you have to do is get the average spins, energy( and mass), and do some math. DO IT.